On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle <arno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know this book and there may be a pedagogical reason for the > implementation you quote, but pairwise_sum is probably better > implemented in Python 3.X as: > > def pairwise_sum(list1, list2): > return [x1 + x2 for x1, x2 in zip(list1, list2)]
Okay, here's something for debate. Should the readability of a language be gauged on the basis of its standard library, or should you be comparing actual code? For instance, a quine in C can be fairly complex and messy, and it can be unobvious what it's doing - but in HQ9+ it's easy. Is it fair to compare on that basis, or should you actually implement the same / equivalent code in each before judging? Of course, that's all without getting into the question of what does "readable" even mean. This has nothing to do with the eternal question of whether it's more readable to use verbose English keywords or cryptic symbols. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
